That part? I'm in complete agreement. Hiring more people? to do what? If 92% of the NICS inquiries come back in minutes? That doesn't sound like a research shortage. Your middle point has some merit in discussion - and if we were throwing $$ at this part of it, improving the efficacy of information sharing/reporting would be one place I think we might realize a benefit, but, I'd want to better understand if/where things are breaking down before engineering a solution to something that's not really a major problem. The 3-day go free pass absolutely could use some adjustment - the decision shouldn't be binary. That limit was enacted to prevent the ability of the government to stall decisions intentionally - instituting a de-facto ban of sales. If the delay is due to some finding that requires more research? That delay should not result in an NICS approval - waiting for a final adjudication is fine. If we keep the "3-day go free pass" in place for things other than positive findings that warrant further scrutiny? It serves as an incentive for the NICS to efficiently process the background checks, and eliminates an incentive for people to try to circumvent the process. I'd like to suggest that a person who's approved should be able to use that approval for some period of time w/out having to repeat the approval process, with the caveat being that any action that would warrant disqualification of that individual's ability to purchase a firearm would have their approval "tagged", analogous to a "stop" on a credit card.

Let's review the history of the NICS, and try to look at the present status and weaknesses, too.

The NRA fought the inception of the NICS, bitterly, and jammed computerized requirements before the technology was possible. By the time it was up and running, they claimed credit for the thing.

FBI and Justice officials indicated that NICS could be improved by extending the maximum time allowed for conducting background checks to minimize the number of default-proceed transactions. Default-proceed transactions involving individuals later determined by the FBI to be prohibited by law from possessing firearms totaled 2,519 during the first 10 months of permanent Brady, according to FBI data. Such transactions increase concerns over public safety and also place demands on law enforcement resources in retrieving the firearms. According to FBI officials, default proceeds occurred primarily because many states’ automated criminal history records did not show the disposition (e.g., acquittals or convictions) of felony arrests, and manual efforts to find such information took longer than 3 business days.

According to FBI data for these 2,519 transfers, an average of 25 business days elapsed between the initial NICS inquiry and the date the FBI determined that the purchase should have been denied.

(...)

(From the same source) However, given the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898),23 states presumably cannot be required or mandated to conduct background checks under NICS. On the other hand, as the Supreme Court has recognized elsewhere, Congress, in general, may impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of federal funds by states.24

In any event, any consideration of encouraging all states to be full participants in NICS must necessarily recognize the following factors:

• States have competing fiscal priorities that may preclude either initiating or expanding their role in NICS without federal financial support.

• States that operate as partial participants in NICS (by conducting background checks on handgun purchasers) may have little interest in expanding their responsibilities to long guns, which traditionally have been viewed as less of a public safety risk than handguns.

• Some states may encounter difficulties in conducting timely or complete background checks for a variety of reasons, including a lack of resources or expertise. Under permanent Brady, if the background check is not completed within 3 business days, the sale of the firearms is allowed to proceed by default, or a “default proceed.”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

States, which handled about 68 million NICS transactions during our review period, are required to update the database with supporting documents as necessary after processing a transaction. We reviewed a judgmental sample of 631 state-processed transactions and determined that in 630 of them the states did not fully update the NICS database or inform the FBI of the transaction’s outcome.

However, not all states make the records of domestic violence protective orders and misdemeanors available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the computer system used to conduct the Brady Law background checks. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice has identified several common impediments to thorough checks of domestic violence records: incomplete automation; incomplete records; and, the inability to distinguish domestic violence misdemeanors from other misdemeanors.

A Freedom of Information Act request from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization shows that in 2012 some 19 states had failed to submit even 100 records to the system. The latest data suggests this group shrunk to just six: Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont and Wyoming.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Three major mass shootings featured individuals who should not have gotten through the NICS system. After Virginia Tech, 1.3 billion was dedicated to improving the system, and making it consistent. It was a PR joke, or course. With a wink and a nod, the senators knew little money would be used as intended.

That seemed like a serious commitment to a robust background check system. But since the bill became law, Congress has given out only 11.5 percent of that money, even as authorization for the spending has been extended beyond the original timetable.

“Everybody knew what was going on — the NRA never wanted any records kept,” says former Congressman James Moran.

In 2009, the first year funds became available, the law gave the green light to $187.5 million in grants. Only $2.5 million was actually appropriated.

“Some of the gun control groups thought the battle was over [when this law passed],” says former Congressman James Moran, a Democrat who represented Virginia’s 8th District from 1991 to 2015, and served on the House Appropriations Committee. “But the insiders realized it didn’t matter how much was authorized if the appropriations committee doesn’t fund it.”

Now, what was the mechanism which defeated the NICS funding? The fix we needed was defeated by "relief from disability," the re-consideration of the loss of gun rights to felons, and the mantally ill! YCMTSU.

Quote

Under the Act, states are required to have a “relief from disability” program, through which persons deemed ineligible for gun ownership due to mental health diagnoses or criminal records can petition for the restoration of their rights.

The provisions make some policymakers queasy: a well-publicized surveyfrom the 1990s by the Violence Policy Center shows numerous instances of felons who received this relief and later committed more crimes. According to a 2015 Congressional Research Service memo obtained by The Trace, only 29 states allow relief from disability, with Connecticut eliminating its program after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. With such a large number of states therefore ineligible for NICS improvement grants, the argument goes, lawmakers don’t prioritize the spending when appropriating federal dollars.

"We’re introducing an updated (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon or ordinary .22, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hmmm, a teacher who acted immediately to subdue the shooter instead of playing human shield.

Good man.

A good guy WITHOUT a gun ended it. Like the recent Waffle house shooting.

There MUST be an answer besides 'MORE GUNS'. We have lots and lots of guns already, and that ain't working.

Nah

We need more. More is better.

Not only should every man woman and child in the good ol' USA have a gun, and be carrying that gun at all times, we should have public-access guns on every street corner. Replace bike racks with gun racks.

I'm going to venture a guess that it's easier to rush a 14yo student who was probably shooting those guns for the first time than someone who goes to the range once a week. Not taking away from what this hero did, but someone more mature with more training would have blown him away. One size does not fit all, keep it real.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do some of you even bother to read the story? Teacher was shot 3 times charging the shooter. Indiana not Illinois kid was a 7th grader so 12/13 years old.

14 and I can't imagine a world where he had any real experience with the guns...but to bring two into the classroom? Too many Westerns. Teacher is my hero, he just bull rushed the kid and in the process, saved lives. Has anyone seen a report on the type/caliber of gun?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A good guy WITHOUT a gun ended it. Like the recent Waffle house shooting.

There MUST be an answer besides 'MORE GUNS'. We have lots and lots of guns already, and that ain't working.

Part of the answer is more courage. If not to charge a shooter when it's too late but at least to control an obvious threat. In at least one of these recent incidents, someone at the school should have stopped the stalking and should also have stopped the retaliatory humiliation by the stalking victim.

Doesn't anyone understand the self part of self esteem or self respect?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

14 and I can't imagine a world where he had any real experience with the guns...but to bring two into the classroom? Too many Westerns. Teacher is my hero, he just bull rushed the kid and in the process, saved lives. Has anyone seen a report on the type/caliber of gun?

Well, the duck gun was plugged so it only held three shots. Enough to make a statement and instill panic. But, shotguns take a while to reload.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, the duck gun was plugged so it only held three shots. Enough to make a statement and instill panic. But, shotguns take a while to reload.

The other gun was the one to kill as many as possible with.

He was able to get a long gun into school? I've never been to a school where the entrances were not limited to one and a long gun would not have made it in as someone was always at the door greeting students. With all the recent school shootings, someone at that school has some splainin to do. And back to my comment about limited experience, it's a simple matter to pull a duck plug out, why he didn't?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

He was able to get a long gun into school? I've never been to a school where the entrances were not limited to one and a long gun would not have made it in as someone was always at the door greeting students. With all the recent school shootings, someone at that school has some splainin to do. And back to my comment about limited experience, it's a simple matter to pull a duck plug out, why he didn't?

I seem to recall that he always wore a long trench coat. (Shades of columbine). He came into the school and then went out and picked up the guns. He probably could have pulled the plug but that only gives you another couple of rounds before reloading. Even the AR-15 would suck compared to a pair of Glock 19s with the factory available 33 round magazines and a couple of reloads for each.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I seem to recall that he always wore a long trench coat. (Shades of columbine). He came into the school and then went out and picked up the guns. He probably could have pulled the plug but that only gives you another couple of rounds before reloading. Even the AR-15 would suck compared to a pair of Glock 19s with the factory available 33 round magazines and a couple of reloads for each.

It was 86 in Detroit today and probably just as warm in Indiana. Long trench coat doesn't raise suspicions? This would not have happened in a Detroit school. Agree with your take on guns, Other than his locker, I don't see where else he would have retrieved the guns from. At my schools, doors were locked after a certain time in the am and one had to buzz the office.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Leahy then asked a question at the heart of the commission's stated mission: whether an 18-year-old high school student should be able to walk into a store and "moments later come out with an AR-15-style gun and hundreds of rounds in ammunition."

Serious question - what expertise does the Dept of Education have upon which to base a "study of guns"? That's like having the EPA perform a study on domestic highway infrastructure.

Thanks. I was going to ask the exact same question. But was more interested in getting home to a margarita on my balcony than sitting in my office to type that out.

Of course now you and I will be labeled gun fanatics who stand in the way of any critical look at guns. I personally think Betsy is a loon and an over-promoted well loon..... but on this I don't think she's wrong. The Dept of Ed, I believe is unqualified on what age someone should be allowed to buy a gun or what type of guns people should be allowed to own. School safety, bullying at school, the culture of violence that children grow up in, social support networks, mental health among teens...... yes all of those are legit subjects.

For those who don't feel like reading the page linked, I offer these two passages -

"In March 2018, President Donald J. Trump appointed U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to lead the Federal Commission on School Safety. The Commission has been charged with quickly providing meaningful and actionable recommendations to keep students safe at school. These recommendations will include a range of issues, like social emotional support, recommendation on effective school safety infrastructure, discussion on minimum age for firearms purchases, and the impact that videogames and the media have on violence.

There is not one plan that fits all schools across the country, so the Commission will be focusing on all variations of school size, structure, and geographic locations with their final recommendations. Input from Commission meetings, listening sessions and field visits will all be considered. Meetings and correspondence with students, parents, teachers, school safety personnel, administrators, law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, school counselors, security professionals and other related stakeholders will be critical to the Commission's work as well."

and

"Over the next few months, the Commission will host formal commission meetings, field visits and listening sessions. The formal meetings will include Commission members Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, as well as subject matter experts. During field visits, select members of the Commission will travel to schools throughout the country to observe and learn about best practices in school safety; and listening sessions will provide an opportunity for the public to give input on ways to make schools safer."

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive description of the Commission's charge and who will be involved (not limited to DoE employees).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I do wonder, do you envision such an effort actually taking place? I am not being a dick about it. Most of the folks who I hear defending 2A rights seem to refuse any effort to limit them. I hear "it's a slippery slope", often. One has gone so far as to say he refuses to change his habit of having his "personal safety weapon" less than fully ready to take down a bad guy. Needless to say, I don't hang out with him.

But, do you see the pro-2A folks taking up that charge?

Yes the pro-2a folks are taking up that charge, and have for a long time.

Here is a quote from the NRA Blog

As a gun owner, it is your responsibility to be proactive in accident prevention by storing your firearms properly.

This is from the Well Armed Women website talking about storing defensive guns

A quick access safe is the best option. (See below for more) The biometric safes are a great choice. They will hold one handgun and can only be opened by you . You don’t need to remember a combination, which you would likely forget under extreme stress. If either of these options or a combination of them both is not comfortable for you, then I would not have a loaded firearm in the house.

As reported by Foxnews

Keep it lockedTheNational Rifle Associationnotes that safe and proper gun storage includes using a secure locking device. Two of the most common mechanisms are trigger locks and cable locks - the former is affixed around the weapon's trigger to lock it in place, while the latter is a long steel cable that is looped through the action of the firearm to block its operation.

For those who don't feel like reading the page linked, I offer these two passages -

"In March 2018, President Donald J. Trump appointed U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to lead the Federal Commission on School Safety. The Commission has been charged with quickly providing meaningful and actionable recommendations to keep students safe at school. These recommendations will include a range of issues, like social emotional support, recommendation on effective school safety infrastructure, discussion on minimum age for firearms purchases, and the impact that videogames and the media have on violence.

There is not one plan that fits all schools across the country, so the Commission will be focusing on all variations of school size, structure, and geographic locations with their final recommendations. Input from Commission meetings, listening sessions and field visits will all be considered. Meetings and correspondence with students, parents, teachers, school safety personnel, administrators, law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, school counselors, security professionals and other related stakeholders will be critical to the Commission's work as well."

and

"Over the next few months, the Commission will host formal commission meetings, field visits and listening sessions. The formal meetings will include Commission members Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, as well as subject matter experts. During field visits, select members of the Commission will travel to schools throughout the country to observe and learn about best practices in school safety; and listening sessions will provide an opportunity for the public to give input on ways to make schools safer."

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive description of the Commission's charge and who will be involved (not limited to DoE employees).

Other than min age on buying guns, I saw nothing in there that discussed gun control measures. I do believe that there is more to be learned from violent video game exposure than gun exposure.

FTR, I have no issue with changing the age to 21 to buy a firearm. Given millennial's immaturity on the whole, it seems like a reasonable measure these days.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Think about it - someone kicks in your door and you're going to defend yourself with a gun that is locked up safely?

WTF are you going to do? Call time out while you open up the safe or pull the cable lock out of the gun and load it?

Either you believe in safe storage of weapons and ammo or you believe in owning guns to defend your home.

You can't have both.

Thanks for your response - given that, I suspect you are unfamiliar w/the biometric pistol safes. Read thru the specs for this one - it will open as quickly as you can open your nightstand drawer and grab the pistol. The point is that with it locked in a safe like this? You wouldn't need to store it unloaded and w/a cable thru the action - that approach is more suited to guns you wouldn't need to grab quickly.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks for your response - given that, I suspect you are unfamiliar w/the biometric pistol safes. Read thru the specs for this one - it will open as quickly as you can open your nightstand drawer and grab the pistol. The point is that with it locked in a safe like this? You wouldn't need to store it unloaded and w/a cable thru the action - that approach is more suited to guns you wouldn't need to grab quickly.

At one point in my life, I kept a loaded handgun in a holster nailed to the inside of the front door.

I don't live in that kind of neighborhood any more. I also have better conflict de-escalation skills, which came in handy when a roofer who had been stiffed by a contractor came to my house looking for money.

For those who don't feel like reading the page linked, I offer these two passages -

"In March 2018, President Donald J. Trump appointed U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to lead the Federal Commission on School Safety. The Commission has been charged with quickly providing meaningful and actionable recommendations to keep students safe at school. These recommendations will include a range of issues, like social emotional support, recommendation on effective school safety infrastructure, discussion on minimum age for firearms purchases, and the impact that videogames and the media have on violence.

There is not one plan that fits all schools across the country, so the Commission will be focusing on all variations of school size, structure, and geographic locations with their final recommendations. Input from Commission meetings, listening sessions and field visits will all be considered. Meetings and correspondence with students, parents, teachers, school safety personnel, administrators, law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, school counselors, security professionals and other related stakeholders will be critical to the Commission's work as well."

and

"Over the next few months, the Commission will host formal commission meetings, field visits and listening sessions. The formal meetings will include Commission members Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, as well as subject matter experts. During field visits, select members of the Commission will travel to schools throughout the country to observe and learn about best practices in school safety; and listening sessions will provide an opportunity for the public to give input on ways to make schools safer."

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive description of the Commission's charge and who will be involved (not limited to DoE employees).

Other than min age on buying guns, I saw nothing in there that discussed gun control measures. I do believe that there is more to be learned from violent video game exposure than gun exposure.

FTR, I have no issue with changing the age to 21 to buy a firearm. Given millennial's immaturity on the whole, it seems like a reasonable measure these days.

If you replace the word "like" with the words "limited to", I would agree. But, they listed a few examples and I do not believe those mentioned are an exhaustive list of issues. If you do, have at it.

If you replace the word "like" with the words "limited to", I would agree. But, they listed a few examples and I do not believe those mentioned are an exhaustive list of issues. If you do, have at it.

No, I looked at the Dept of Ed's website on this issue and it was a repeat of the original snippet statement you posted. It certainly isn't an exhaustive list. But I still don't think that a Dept of Ed's study on school safety should revolve around broader gun control measures. IMHO, they are not qualified to speak on that except where lack of measures directly affect school safety.

As I said, I have no issue with a recommendation regarding raising the min age to 21 for buying a gun. A school would be qualified to speak to the maturity of children under 21. I also have no issues with addressing guns not secured at home, as a school would be qualified to comment on the maturity and responsibility of a teenager or younger kid should they get their hands on a dangerous substance at home. We have similar things I believe where a school might counsel parents on not leaving poison laying around. And recommendations on safe storage of poisons is a legitimate topic since it affects children. So I have no issues with similar recommendations about safe storage of firearms at home. In fact, had this later issue been addressed, the vast majority of these school shooters could not have carried out their attacks at all if they can't get to daddy's rifle or pistol. So I think that is likely THE first place I would start if I were on that commission.

OTOH, I think its inappropriate for a commission on school safety to discuss assault weapon bans, background checks, waiting periods, registration, and all the other gun control hot buttons the left wants so badly. They are not qualified to speak to that and OMHO is not relevant directly to school safety. If you raise the age to 21, then all those issues go away as being relevant because if a 17 or 18 year old cannot buy an AR-15 in the first place, he would not need a BCG, nor be registered. And if there were safe storage protocols, then the under 21s couldn't get to the parents guns either.

I think a commission on school safety should focus on school safety. And that is dealing with the root causes first of why HS kids shoot up their schools in the first place due to bullying, social isolation, mental health, abuse at home, constant exposure to violence through media, etc etc and then find ways to address those issues. And doing that while simultaneously making it much harder for a shooter to get into a school with a gun in the first place. That means better protection, better security, better screening and better reporting mechanisms so these shitbags can be identified early and stopped. Almost everyone of these shooters had plenty of tells that had someone actually acted on them, they would have been prevented from killing anyone.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS ^^ that a school safety commission should be focusing on. Anything other than that would simply be using the school shooting issue to turn this into a partisan shitfight to argue for broader gun control and then nothing will get done.

Share on other sites

Anything other than that would simply be using the school shooting issue to turn this into a partisan shitfight to argue for broader gun control and then nothing will get done.

Jeffie wants to compartmentalize the many breakdowns in our gun problem? Well, the danger of guns in schools is now clear, and present. The problem is very apparent. It is not partisan, and it won't just go away.

The circulation of guns, and the acceptance of guns within the homes, is the underlying issue. Jeff wants the schools to be selective, to speak only about gun locks, but to avoid weighing in on the underlying cultural issue. Interesting.

Jeffie wants to compartmentalize the many breakdowns in our gun problem? Well, the danger of guns in schools is now clear, and present. The problem is very apparent. It is not partisan, and it won't just go away.

The circulation of guns, and the acceptance of guns within the homes, is the underlying issue. Jeff wants the schools to be selective, to speak only about gun locks, but to avoid weighing in on the underlying cultural issue. Interesting.

Joke-al, I have repeatedly begged you to address the underlying "cultural issue". Except the underlying issue is not "gun culture", its "violence culture". I seriously doubt all these teens that shoot up HS's are reading American Rifleman and Gunz & Ammo or are members of the NRA. The "culture" that desperately needs looking into is the culture of bullying, social isolation, teen depression, online bullying, etc.

Any "gun culture" these teens get is from playing first person shooter video games. I sincerely doubt they were fondling daddy's shotgun or rifle for months leading up to the attacks. But I'd bet $$ to donuts that they were in their room gunning down as many people as they could 11 hours per day on their Xbox with their virtual fully automatic SCAR or M-4. In fact, almost ALL of the cases where someone got a gun and used it to mass murder - they purchased the gun only a few weeks prior (if they could legally buy it) or stole it from daddy's closet the morning of the attack. Not much time to develop a gun culture mentality in that short of a time. To these sick fucks, the gun was nothing more that a tool to them. If they could have easily manufactured a bomb or set the school on fire, I'm sure they would have been just as content to do that rather than shoot up the place. All they care about is the end result, they don't care how they get there. They are not fantasizing about gunz, they are fantasizing about killing others and gaining some notoriety because they are invisible losers in real life.

No, I looked at the Dept of Ed's website on this issue and it was a repeat of the original snippet statement you posted. It certainly isn't an exhaustive list. But I still don't think that a Dept of Ed's study on school safety should revolve around broader gun control measures. IMHO, they are not qualified to speak on that except where lack of measures directly affect school safety.

As I said, I have no issue with a recommendation regarding raising the min age to 21 for buying a gun. A school would be qualified to speak to the maturity of children under 21. I also have no issues with addressing guns not secured at home, as a school would be qualified to comment on the maturity and responsibility of a teenager or younger kid should they get their hands on a dangerous substance at home. We have similar things I believe where a school might counsel parents on not leaving poison laying around. And recommendations on safe storage of poisons is a legitimate topic since it affects children. So I have no issues with similar recommendations about safe storage of firearms at home. In fact, had this later issue been addressed, the vast majority of these school shooters could not have carried out their attacks at all if they can't get to daddy's rifle or pistol. So I think that is likely THE first place I would start if I were on that commission.

OTOH, I think its inappropriate for a commission on school safety to discuss assault weapon bans, background checks, waiting periods, registration, and all the other gun control hot buttons the left wants so badly. They are not qualified to speak to that and OMHO is not relevant directly to school safety. If you raise the age to 21, then all those issues go away as being relevant because if a 17 or 18 year old cannot buy an AR-15 in the first place, he would not need a BCG, nor be registered. And if there were safe storage protocols, then the under 21s couldn't get to the parents guns either.

I think a commission on school safety should focus on school safety. And that is dealing with the root causes first of why HS kids shoot up their schools in the first place due to bullying, social isolation, mental health, abuse at home, constant exposure to violence through media, etc etc and then find ways to address those issues. And doing that while simultaneously making it much harder for a shooter to get into a school with a gun in the first place. That means better protection, better security, better screening and better reporting mechanisms so these shitbags can be identified early and stopped. Almost everyone of these shooters had plenty of tells that had someone actually acted on them, they would have been prevented from killing anyone.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS ^^ that a school safety commission should be focusing on. Anything other than that would simply be using the school shooting issue to turn this into a partisan shitfight to argue for broader gun control and then nothing will get done.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Joke-al, I have repeatedly begged you to address the underlying "cultural issue". Except the underlying issue is not "gun culture", its "violence culture". I seriously doubt all these teens that shoot up HS's are reading American Rifleman and Gunz & Ammo or are members of the NRA. The "culture" that desperately needs looking into is the culture of bullying, social isolation, teen depression, online bullying, etc.

Any "gun culture" these teens get is from playing first person shooter video games. I sincerely doubt they were fondling daddy's shotgun or rifle for months leading up to the attacks. In fact, almost ALL of the cases where someone got a gun and used it to mass murder - they purchased the gun only a few weeks prior (if they could legally buy it) or stole it from daddy's closet the morning of the attack. Not much time to develop a gun culture mentality in that short of a time. To these sick fucks, the gun was nothing more that a tool to them. If they could have easily manufactured a bomb or set the school on fire, I'm sure they would have been just as content to do that rather than shoot up the place. All they care about is the end result, they don't care how they get there. They are not fantasizing about gunz, they are fantasizing about killing others and gaining some notoriety because they are invisible losers in real life.

THAT ^^ is the culture that needs addressing!

ahh yes, that's the real elephant in the room.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Joke-al, I have repeatedly begged you to address the underlying "cultural issue". Except the underlying issue is not "gun culture", its "violence culture". I seriously doubt all these teens that shoot up HS's are reading American Rifleman and Gunz & Ammo or are members of the NRA. The "culture" that desperately needs looking into is the culture of bullying, social isolation, teen depression, online bullying, etc.

Any "gun culture" these teens get is from playing first person shooter video games. I sincerely doubt they were fondling daddy's shotgun or rifle for months leading up to the attacks. But I'd bet $$ to donuts that they were in their room gunning down as many people as they could 11 hours per day on their Xbox with their virtual fully automatic SCAR or M-4. In fact, almost ALL of the cases where someone got a gun and used it to mass murder - they purchased the gun only a few weeks prior (if they could legally buy it) or stole it from daddy's closet the morning of the attack. Not much time to develop a gun culture mentality in that short of a time. To these sick fucks, the gun was nothing more that a tool to them. If they could have easily manufactured a bomb or set the school on fire, I'm sure they would have been just as content to do that rather than shoot up the place. All they care about is the end result, they don't care how they get there. They are not fantasizing about gunz, they are fantasizing about killing others and gaining some notoriety because they are invisible losers in real life.

THAT ^^ is the culture that needs addressing!

Except that is not what has changed...... kids bullying each other? Amazing! Our ancestors would be shocked, shocked I tell you!

Violent video games have been around for a bit more than one generation, shucks I remember a game on the Commodore 64 that featured a first-person shoot-em-up where bloody internal organs (lo-res but identifiable...... "look, there goes his kidney!") went flying out the bad guys bodies.

Share on other sites

Joke-al, I have repeatedly begged you to address the underlying "cultural issue".

It is you. (And it is Larry Pratt as well.)

The cultural issue is in your brain, and in brains like yours. You think you are okay, and you can even talk like a choirboy in the right places, at the right times. But for just one example, you don't understand the genuine frustrations of African Americans (a basic). They suffer from your un-developed POV, which is purely Unenlightened Ugly American.

You have spewed all the NRA talking points, and have clothed yourself in the Bill of Rights, while peddling shitty values, which are not sustainable. You presentation is poor, and it's a violent deterioration of the ideas of the founding fathers, masked as patriotism.

The underlying cultural issue will pass away. IMO, historically, you and the NRA will become a national embarrassment.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To these sick fucks, the gun was nothing more that a tool to them. If they could have easily manufactured a bomb or set the school on fire, I'm sure they would have been just as content to do that rather than shoot up the place. All they care about is the end result, they don't care how they get there.

What about laziness? Guns are an easy tool to use, and they're readily available.

You have no empirical basis to claim that all shooters would become basement firebombers in the absence of guns.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gun proliferation. Just last year 350k gun nutters successfully got guns with no background check at all. In Florida alone. That’s just the ones we know about. Meanwhile no firebomb permits were issued.

guns are a serious public health issue.

Good thing you are fake news because that is what this post is. More libtard lies because the truth doesn't fit their narrative.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I kind of just heard about the concept on internet “socks”. Who’s sock are you? I’m guessing chicken hawk bird. You are too angry to be Tom or short Jeff and you sound to be elderly. Eighties at least.

Link to post

Share on other sites

...... NO STEAM FLYER DID NOT SAY THIS................... To these sick fucks, the gun was nothing more that a tool to them. If they could have easily manufactured a bomb or set the school on fire, I'm sure they would have been just as content to do that rather than shoot up the place. All they care about is the end result, they don't care how they get there.

What about laziness? Guns are an easy tool to use, and they're readily available.

You have no empirical basis to claim that all shooters would become basement firebombers in the absence of guns.

Jocal the quote function is a bit messed up but please try to not misquote me so badly.

10? More like 25+ years. About the time it was decided that "kids who can't sit still" really had a disorder, and they had to be put on drugs with "interesting" side effects.

nope, it's just 24x7 news. 3 kids in the class behind me in high school kid an old couple, execution style, with a 30-06 in the couple's driveway.

Other than the local paper? It wasn't news.

Can't blame drugs, video games, etc. CAN blame a parent who let their teen have a 30-06.

and best-of-all, the trigger puller did all of 6 years.

I agree with the 24/7 news part, but that's definitely not "just" it. But I do absolutely think that most of the mass shootings are often a "cluster" type thing that spreads because of the hype the previous one gets in the constant unending coverage in the neuse.

But I disagree about video games. Gaming has become far more violent and far more real and graphic than it was 25 years ago. I was an avid gamer back in the day and I can tell you its changed significantly. FPS games were typically about killing monsters, aliens, and caricatured Nazis. Even when it involved "killing" real people, it was usually pretty obvious that it was a game and not to be taken seriously. As the tech evolved however, there was a transition point where it was easy to forget it was a game and you became immersed in it. As the violence got amped up and the dead bodies became more real - it was easy to forget that its only a game. Adrenaline, heart rate, sweat, etc would all replicate what it was like to be in a real fire fight. And all by design, that was the mark of a good video game. But for developing minds who had not been grounded in right or wrong or for those few who were just wired wrong - I believe these high gore ultra realistic games DO absolutely have an effect on children. Couple that with LOTS and lots of other violent images and themes bombarding them from literately almost birth - from music, to TV, movies, news, internet, etc - and we are breeding children that have a fucked sense of empathy for their fellow human. I would bet that by the time these recent shitbags pulled the trigger for real in their HS, they had literally thousands of hours behind the "trigger" on their playstation becoming numb to death and killing and one day snapped and decided to take the "game" to the next level of realism.

Yes, early studies have been inconclusive - but none have really done an exhaustive study on the link between violent media and this kind of murder to the degree required. Most of the studies themselves would qualify their findings. I would bet big money that future studies WILL find a definitive link to gaming and mass murder particularly among teens and young adults. In no way am I suggesting its the sole reason or even #1 causal factor. But I do think its one of the top ones (top 5 causal ??) contributing to this issue.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Protesters stage ‘die-in’ to commemorate Pulse nightclub shooting

High school students from the Chicago area stage a die-in demonstration in front of Trump Tower to protest gun violence on the anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting, on Tuesday afternoon, June 12, 2018. | Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times

“FAMSVARPAC.orgis comprised of Stoneman Douglas parents, March For Our Lives parents, and other area parents who share our concerns,” Jeff Kasky, the father of Stoneman Douglas student and one of the founders of March for our Lives, Cameron Kasky, told HillReporter.com.

“Our mission is very simple: We’re demanding the assault rifles be reclassified into the NFA of 1934, thus making them very difficult to buy/sell/own,” Kasky added. “Further, we advocate for an outright ban on bump stocks & high capacity magazines. (The possibility exists that we will advocate for fresh legislation, as opposed to inclusion in the NFA, depending on what happens in the midterms.)”

Kasky, who just launchedDonate17.org, is a volunteer for FAMSVARPAC, a political action committee where all employees work voluntarily without a salary. His goal, he tells us, is to get enough signups (those donating $17 or more) to eclipse the NRA’s alleged member base of 6 million people, and to use the money to help fund candidates willing to fight for commonsense gun legislation.

“Most importantly, we need sign-ups so we can claim comparable numbers to the NRA, which has a 147-year jump on us insofar as membership is concerned,” Kasky told us, before making it very clear that this group completely respects our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

“Our group is NOT anti-2nd Amendment. Personally, I think it’s poorly-written and wouldn’t mind an opportunity to revisit its meaning and purpose, but the PAC isn’t going there,” Kasky explained. “FOUR federal courts have determined that assault weapons are NOT covered by the 2A, so nothing we’re doing can be said to be taking anyone’s rights away. Further, we aren’t advocating the confiscation of anyone’s weapons, just a registration with the ATF of already-existing assault weapons, and very strict rules for ownership going forward. The kid who shot up Cam & Holden’s [his two son’s] school was a very mentally-ill 19 year old who went down the street and legally purchased an AR-15-style rifle. As Cameron has said, if there was any kind of mental health requirement, they’d have given him a straight jacket, not a weapon of war!”

"We’re introducing an updated (Assault Weapon, Ordinary dogballs) Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon or ordinary dogballs, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first (Assault Weapon, Ordinary dogballs) Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these (assault weapons, ordinary dogballs's) in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

Further﻿, we aren’t advocating the confiscation of anyone’s weapons﻿, just a registration with the ATF of already-existing assault weapons, and very strict rules for ownership going forward. The kid who shot up Cam & Holden’s [his two son’s] school was a very mentally-ill 19 year old who went down the s﻿treet and legally purchased an AR-15-style rifle. As Cameron has said, if there was any kind of mental health requirement, they’d have given him a straight jacket, not a weapon of war!”﻿﻿﻿

And yet I don’t see this group calling for any kind of similar strict registration or restrictions on the mentally ill. Why are the focused ONLY on the toolz used rather than the behavior that was actually fucking CAUSAL to the tragedy.

THIS ^^ is what drives pro-gun rights nuts insane! The hypocrisy and shortsightedness of this mentality is stunning. Why are they NOT instead calling for that mental health requirement that would have given him a straight jacket in stead of a weapon??